California officials sue Fresno County over sheriff, district attorney election cycle

California’s top cop and top elections official have sued Fresno County over a recently passed initiative that defies state law by keeping sheriff and district attorney elections in non-presidential election years.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed a lawsuit Friday in Fresno County Superior Court against the county and its top elections official James Kus, alleging Fresno County’s primary election ballot measure Measure A is not authorized under the California Constitution, calling it “invalid and unenforceable.”

“Our democracy works best when everyone can participate and make their voices heard. Fresno’s Measure A unlawfully conflicts with California law and has the potential to suppress voter turnout,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Measure A amends Fresno County’s charter by adding language to keep Fresno County elections for sheriff and district attorney in non-presidential years . The County and its supporters argued this would keep “partisan noise” outside of the elections.

Fresno County voters approved the measure during the March 5 primary elections with 80,088, or 54.92%, yes votes and 65,737, or 45.08%, no votes, according to the Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voters .

“Because this attempt to move these elections away from the presidential election cycle violates state law and would suppress participation, we have filed this lawsuit to ensure that the rights of all voters are protected,” Weber said.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that amended the California Election Code to move District Attorney and Sheriff elections to be held during presidential election cycles. The authors of AB 759 were concerned that because these positions “wield such immense power, those elections should occur during election cycles where turnout is highest,” according to a press release from the attorney general’s office .

In a statement issued Friday afternoon, Fresno County said “the lawsuit is an invalid attempt to overturn the will of the voters of Fresno County.”

Opponents to the measure — which included Democratic Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, state Sen. Anna Caballero of Merced and the League of Women Voters of Fresno — warned the measure would “surely” be challenged in the courts because it defies state law .

The state seeks injunctive relief from the court to bar the county from implementing or enforcing Measure A and its amendment to Section 15 of the Fresno County Charter.

Reactions to lawsuit

For the county and Nathan Magsig, chair of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, one of the main issues is that, to adjust to the new state law, Fresno County’s current Sheriff John Zanoni and District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp will serve six-year terms instead of the four-year terms for which voters elected them .

In addition, the county said that local issues and candidates get lost in the presidential campaign years, especially when it comes to competing with national campaigns for resources like advertising time.

“These concerns are presumably why there is no push to move the California Governor’s election to presidential elections,” it said.

The idea that the state’s primary concern is maximum voter turnout for DA and sheriff elections is a “foolish argument,” Magsig said, and one that could apply to several key local races.

“School board positions are just as important, council positions are just as important,” Magsig said. “If the state’s really concerned about maximum turnout, then let’s get rid of the gubernatorial cycle election and just have elections every four years.”

Kay Bertken, co-president of the League of Women Voters Fresno, said it’s an interesting argument, but that Magisg and other Measure A supporters should have raised concerns before the law was passed. She is “quite pleased” the state decided to pursue the lawsuit.

She also called the county’s decision to put the measure on the ballot “a misappropriation of taxpayer funds... on an illegal endeavor.”

“You don’t even have to agree with the substance of it to agree that it’s a law, and generally, people are obliged to obey the law,” she said in a Tuesday interview with The Bee.

Fresno County, however, called the state law an “unconstitutional overreach by the legislature.”

Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz said in a statement Friday that he “welcomes the state inquiry since DA and Sheriff elections have a profound impact on the enforcement and prosecution of crimes in the City of Fresno.”

Fresno County said it had no comment in response to Janz’s statement, saying he has “no standing or jurisdiction with respect to the County charter and the County’s internal organizational matters under state law.”

What about exceptions to the California law?

The state’s 2022 law said that if a charter county had specific language on its district attorney and sheriff election cycles prior to Jan. 1, 2021, these counties wouldn’t be required to adjust their election cycles.

Fresno is one of 14 charter counties in California. According to the California State Association of Counties , charter counties have a certain degree of “home rule” authority for certain decisions related to elections, compensation, terms, removal and salary of the governing board and other county positions. (The remaining 44 counties are considered general law counties, which follow state laws when dealing with the number and duties of county elected officials.)

“Until Measure A passed, Fresno’s County Charter was silent on the timing of the elections of district attorney and sheriff,” the lawsuit said.

In its statement, the county said that while the legislature may pass laws in areas of state-wide concern, the fact that this law allowed for exemptions for certain charter counties “(demonstrates) the issue was not a matter of state-wide concern.”

Two lawsuits between state, county over local control

The lawsuit is one of two legal battles between the state and Fresno County in recent years.

In 2023, the county sued the state over a 2022 state law that removes the term “squaw” from California places by 2025. The term today is widely considered a slur against Indigenous and Native American women.

In response to questions about whether there is any similarities between the two lawsuits, Magsig said the only correlation is the question of “local control.”

Speaking on behalf of the board, Magsig said “we believe government closest to the people is what makes the most sense.”

The county is currently appealing a December court decision which said the county, as a political entity of the state, didn’t appear to have the standing to sue the state. An estimated $40,000 has been allocated towards this lawsuit and appeal.